Bombay High Court
DR BHARAT BAJARANG BALLALversusTHE VICE CHANCELLOR AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal before the University Tribunal and waiving any limitation bar.
Summary
Petitioner Bharat Bajarang Ballal challenged an order dated 07.02.2026 passed by the Grievance Committee of Shivaji University, claiming it to be an appealable order before the University Tribunal. The High Court observed that an equally effective remedy exists in filing a statutory appeal before the University Tribunal and therefore declined to examine the merits of the petition. The Court waived any limitation bar for the petition and directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks, ensuring that the Tribunal will decide the matter independently of the Grievance Committee's findings. All of the petitioner's contentions were kept open for consideration before the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any substantive ruling on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Grievance Committee of Shivaji University is appealable before the High Court or only before the University Tribunal
- Whether the limitation period bars the petitioner's relief in the writ petition
- Whether the High Court should entertain the merits of the petition or direct the petitioner to the appropriate statutory remedy
Subjects
- writ petition
- grievance committee
- university tribunal
- limitation
- appellate jurisdiction
- administrative law
Judgment
7. CIVIL WP-12436-25.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12436 OF 2025
Bharat Bajarang Ballal .. Petitioner
Versus
The Vice Chancellor,
Shivaji University & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Sunil S. Yadav a/w Mr. Umang D. Yadav, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Vikram N. Walawalkar (through VC) a/w Mr. Prathamesh P.
Magadum, Advocates for Respondent No. 1
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 17, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Yadav, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr.
Walawalkar duly assisted by Mr. Magadum, learned Advocates for
Respondent No. 1.
2. Grievance of Petitioner stems from challenge to the order
07.02.2026 passed by the Grievance Committee of Respondent No. 1 –
University. Without entering into the merits of the matter, Mr. Yadav
would in his usual fairness submit that the impugned order is an
appellable order before the University Tribunal. However, Petitioner
being constrained has approached this Court. He would also persuade
the Court to consider subsequent developments and passing of further
1 of 2
7. CIVIL WP-12436-25.odt
orders and events which are contained in the COD placed before us by
him today.
3. We have considered the submissions made by both the learned
Advocates. Considering the fact that an equally efficacious remedy is
available to Petitioner, we refrain from going into the merits of the
matter. Needless to state that all contentions of Petitioner including
the subsequent incidents and developments and orders passed are all
expressly kept open to enable the Petitioner to take recourse to the
same while filing the statutory Appeal before the University Tribunal.
The time spent in prosecuting the present Petition shall stand waived
insofar as limitation is concerned.
4. All contentions of Petitioner are expressly kept open. Needless
to state that while determining the Appeal which shall be filed by
Petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, the Tribunal shall
not be influenced by the findings and observations in the impugned
order passed by the Grievance Committee and shall decide the Appeal
of Petitioner on its own merits and strictly in accordance with law.
5. With the above directions, without opining anything on merits
of the matter, Writ Petition is disposed.
[ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Amberkar
2 of 2
Checking your session…